Dog Owners' Oprah Alert

HoundMusic

Then we agree to disagree. I do not believe animals have rights - I believe that as the species endowed with higher awareness, we have a responsibility to ensure their welfare, to prevent abuse & neglect, to responsibly care for our animals. Animal rights supporters believe humans should not own animals

If you don't see anythign extreme with a law that will essentially outlaw breeding than I believe you are an AR and will just respectfully disagree with your beliefs.

 

HoundMusic, I was lazy in my terminology and failed to distinguish between animal rights and animal welfare. You are correct in pointing out the difference. I do not consider myself an AR advocate but an AW advocate. As such I will have to agree to disagree with "everyone's right to breed" for the simple fact that their are many breeders who do not "ensure their welfare, to prevent abuse or neglect".

HoundMusic

Do you honestly think I support abuse/neglectful situations because I am against anti breeder legislation? lol I love hearing people who've never bred a litter & probably don't even own an intact dog who believe they know more about animal husbandry than the breeder. If you don't see anything extreme with a law that will essentially outlaw breeding than I believe you are an AR and will just respectfully disagree with your beliefs.

 

I don't think you support "abuse/neglectful situations" for any reason to be honest. That would make you a pretty sick individual, which I'm almost sure you are not. No, I am not a breeder and my dog is not intact.  The article does not give specifics so it is difficult to determine if it is extreme or not and if the regulations will indeed outlaw breeding.  I will look and see if I can find the exact bill before I comment further, but reasonable standards and regulations are meant to support responsible breeding not outlaw it. IMO 

   

Wayne-O eh?

Who doesn't even own a dog because he's never felt an attachment to animals...good choice for a guest. I won't be watching. That man gives me some serious gas.

I hope however, they can push adoption/rescue without bashing folks who breed responsibly...but with Wayne-O there I doubt it.

I am sure the appearace will generate a bunch of money in donations, to run those shelters they have...oh wait...

rwbeagles

Wayne-O eh?

Who doesn't even own a dog because he's never felt an attachment to animals...good choice for a guest. I won't be watching. That man gives me some serious gas.

OMG, are you serious?!  That's crazy!!  I don't know much about HSUS, other than what I've read on this board.  I did peruse their website, and found some very misleading statements that make me very wary.  Like, in their FAQ, there's a question about their connection to local Humane Societies, and their answer makes it seem like they help fund them, which is not factually correct.  I know for a fact that the Atlanta Humane Society does not receive anything from these folks.  They say so right on their website. 

Also found this interesting tidbet in Wayne's bio on the HSUS site: "In 1997 the Los Angeles Times labeled Pacelle as one of America's most important animal rights activists."   Oy.

I still plan to watch this Oprah episode, and I can't even remember the last time I watched Oprah.  But my DVR is set, I'll watch, and keep my fingers crossed that it doesn't get out of control...

My bad he has a dog and several cats "now"...photo op's and such. Wayne-O is nothing if not mindful of the press.

ETA: She mssed a real good op not having Nathan Winograd on this show, IMO.

denise m

I

- bill defines a “breeder“ as any person who sells or offers to sell more than five puppies per year.  -  bill requires breeders to comply with a host of restrictive regulations and institutes steep fines for violations.  - prohibits any breeder from selling more than 25 dogs in one year.  - all breeders would be required to maintaining specified temperatures, - keeping animals only on nonporous surfaces - circulating air at precise levels.  - acceptable dimensions for crates and runs - sets minimum socialization standards.  - all breeders are required to register annually with the Department of Health.  This list will be published and made available to the public.  - breeders are required to furnish specified information to pet purchasers and provide a full refund for any reason for a pet returned within 14 days.  Any dog which is sold with a pedigree can be returned for a full refund within 26 months if any congenital or genetic defects are discovered.  With all due respect, if this is the worst you've seen I fail to see the threat you elude to. I think it is important to have standards and regulations in an industry that deals in living, feeling creatures. Can laws be too restrictive? Sure, but I don't see anything too extreme here.

 

Obviously you don't breed and aren't involved much with people who do.

 My puppies are born in my house in my bedroom. At 3 weeks old, they are moved to a spare room and are pretty much able to roam free in that room with toys, strange surfaces, different obstacles added daily for their socialization. The room has at first, newspaper covering the hardwood floor but also a lot of blankets and bedding for puppies to pile up in for a nap. Of course they are also allowed to be loose in the house when they can be supervised and hang out with the family and tolerant older dogs. As they grow they are encouraged to use a smaller potty area and then are introduced to crating. Weather permitting, they may be allowed outdoor time as well usually in a large expen with outside toys.

 Under the laws which you don't find extreme my puppies and breeding dogs would need to be housed in a climate controlled kennel with proper air system on a cement, tile or wire floor. I don't have a kennel nor do I live some place where I could nor do I want to house my dogs in that way. Under these laws I'd either have to become a criminal to continue breeding or just give up on it.

 In some breeds just two litters a year could be pretty close to 25 puppies. Many involved breeders co-own and co-breed numerous litters a year that their name is on but they don't actually have the puppies or the bitch. That could put them well over the 25 puppy limit, even if they have never even seen the litter in person. And the full refund for any sort of "genetic" problem until the dog is two? I fail to see where that should be the law.

As I stated before I do not breed, so I really do defer to those like yourself who do and I am open to be educated. I know a few people who have bred their dogs but they do not consider themselves breeders. They are not licensed but have had a litter, kept a single pup and sold the rest. I guess the common term would be BYB.  The breeder I got my dog from has a very similar set up to what you describe and she is a licensed breeder with all the bells and whistles, subject to all the rules and regulations.

As far as housing your puppies and breeding dogs I think your home would pass the climate control and air circulation standard and I know if I had a litter of puppies in my home they would be on a hard surface that is cleanable. Hardwood would probably meet the standard as well. I don't see in the bill that dogs have to be kept in a kennel or run, just if they are the facilities have to be to a certain standard. So in this regard I don't think you would be a considered a criminal.

The numbers game is a little more questionable, granted. How many pups do you think someone should be able to sell without having to be licensed or subject to any formal regulations? Should there be an upper limit? If 25 is too low, is 100 to high? In your personal breeding what is the max number of pups that have been registered in your name in any given year? I think the max of 25 is to limit those breeders who are churning out litter after litter for monetary reasons, but if the number is too restrictive for responsible breeders then I agree it should be raised. I'm just not sure what a typical number of pups would be.

My breeder does give a 2yr guarantee and I assume it is the law. Could you elaborate on the down side of this from your perspective? 

denise m

The numbers game is a little more questionable, granted. How many pups do you think someone should be able to sell without having to be licensed or subject to any formal regulations? Should there be an upper limit? If 25 is too low, is 100 to high? In your personal breeding what is the max number of pups that have been registered in your name in any given year? I think the max of 25 is to limit those breeders who are churning out litter after litter for monetary reasons, but if the number is too restrictive for responsible breeders then I agree it should be raised. I'm just not sure what a typical number of pups would be.

 I honestly don't know that I think there should be a number limit. I personally have had fewer than 20 any given year BUT that could change in a year or two, as I kept co-ownership on a bitch puppy from my litter last year and plan to do the same with this litter. That means if I choose to breed two litters and one or both of the owners chooses to breed their bitch I co-own, I will most likely have over 25 puppies registered with me as a breeder or very close to it.

denise m

My breeder does give a 2yr guarantee and I assume it is the law. Could you elaborate on the down side of this from your perspective? 

  I think it is great and fine for a breeder to OFFER a two year guarantee. I offer a guarantee for eyes, hips and elbows but I do put restrictions on it (altering age for example for hips or that they need to follow the contract for it to apply). I do not offer a cash refund though, instead I offer another puppy when the owner is ready and one is available. My reasons for this are:

 1. No matter how much a breeder researches and tests, all dogs (including mixed breeds) carry the potential to produce genetic health issues. This is to a degree out of the breeder's hands and no dog is genetically "normal" and will only ever produce "normal" puppies. If you breed dogs, some puppies from your breeding will likely have a genetic issue to some degree. How would a genetic problem be defined? Could an owner get a refund for a male with a retained testicle, even if that is why the dog was sold to them as a pet?

 2. IMO If you are purchasing a puppy, you should have common sense enough to understand you are largely buying an unknown. Hips/elbows can't be tested, eye checks can change and some genetic issues are unable to be screened for in puppies or their parents. If a guarantee is important to you, seek out a breeder who offers one that you are happy with. I wouldn't make a puppy purchase based on if the breeder offers a guarantee or not. If there is a higher price for a show/breeding prospect I would probably lean towards a breeder who would offer a replacement if the puppy didn't turn out or refund the difference but I don't think that should be the law either.

 3. I use the guarantee as an extra incentive for owners to follow my contract, as without following it the guarantee is void. I also use it to promote owners having their puppies from me health checked (CERF'd/OFA'd) instead of just getting their local vet's opinion on the matter. I use it to push issues that I feel are important - training classes, later altering, proper care and feeding and the such. If a cash back refund was required by law, it would take away a means that I and other breeders have to further stress issues in the contract or push for health testing.

  4. I just plain don't like the idea (not just of the guarantee part but these sort of laws in general) and feel that our goverment should not be attempting to micromanage citizens through restrictive laws. Something really seems fundamentally wrong with that to me. These laws come down to legislation based on personal feelings, emotions and things that "sound good" when the average person hears about them. IMO laws should never be based on that sort of thing. Sadly, I suspect people will likely see this Oprah show and see Mr. H$U$ talk about breeders contributing to overpopulation and animals suffering at the hands of breeders and it will make them upset with ALL breeders or most. It will make it seem to many people that breeders are bad people and "there oughta be laws" to control them. This is how AR works to promote their agenda. This is how it has over time become politically incorrect in the US to breed dogs or want dogs from a breeder. Show people images of neglect, tell sad stories, show lonely looking shelter dogs, skew the numbers a bit. You then collect your money while you make breeders out to be the bad guys in the eyes of the general public. That is how AR has come so far with their anti-breeder movement and how they can continue to gain momentum, while we dog people all fight against ourselves saying "well I don't see how such a law is that bad and it would only hurt people who were doing the wrong thing anyway".

denise m

As far as housing your puppies and breeding dogs I think your home would pass the climate control and air circulation standard and I know if I had a litter of puppies in my home they would be on a hard surface that is cleanable. Hardwood would probably meet the standard as well. I don't see in the bill that dogs have to be kept in a kennel or run, just if they are the facilities have to be to a certain standard. So in this regard I don't think you would be a considered a criminal.

     This is the main reason why hobby/show breeders would be put out of business. USDA/state licensing requirements are strict, but nothing in comparison to this proposed legislation. Licensed commercial breeders are not allowed to house dogs in their home when licensed for both sanitary & identification reasons - each dog must be in a kennel that is somehow marked with their identification/information. And/or tattooed/microchipped for record keeping purposes. A commercial breeder who allows dogs to whelp in the home will be in violation. Now, I do believe that USDA requires kennels to have some sort of climate control in their kennels, however it's much more lenient and reasonable. *Under this legislation, all breeders (and remember, a breeder is defined as someone who has 5 pups per year) would be required to get licensed. Therefore, we must meet the standards of licensing and that's not just paying a yearly fee - it's very involved and your kennel must be built to certain specifications. As I mentioned, no dogs whelping in the house is a requirement of being licensed.
     Whenever legislation such as this passes into law (and they have in some states/cities), this is in addition to the normal USDA/state licnesing procedures and also covers a host of other breeders who would otherwise not need to be licensed. I would personally be affected by this law if it passed in NY. There is no way I can put up an appropriate kennel building in my backyard ... all I'd be able to do is use wire and you cannot really have a climate controlled environment in either a kennel run or an above ground (wire) kennel. So I'd be screwed.

denise m

How many pups do you think someone should be able to sell without having to be licensed or subject to any formal regulations? Should there be an upper limit? If 25 is too low, is 100 to high? In your personal breeding what is the max number of pups that have been registered in your name in any given year? I think the max of 25 is to limit those breeders who are churning out litter after litter for monetary reasons, but if the number is too restrictive for responsible breeders then I agree it should be raised. I'm just not sure what a typical number of pups would be.

     Well, I've said it before & I'll say it again. You can produce a profit on a well bred litter, and breeding for profit, so long as the dogs are well kept, is not something I believe should be looked down upon. Contrary to politically correct belief, if you know what you're doing, you can make a profit without sacrificing the well being of the animals ... but that's another thread entirely ... lol.
     I don't think that there should be a government set limit as to how many pups a breeder can produce in a year. Most breeders do regulate themselves, because if you go over X amount of pups, they simply won't sell. True puppy mills are the ones that don't know how to regulate themselves, but I believe those ar ethe exception, not the rule. They exist, but not in the numbers AR groups want us to believe. Every breeder who sells to a pet store does not have dogs in those filthy, deplorable conditions. Not even close.
     What I certainly don't believe is that 25 pups a year is reasonable. If I have 4 litters with 7 pups each (7 is the average for my hounds), I have gone over regulation and need to be fined $5000 for my first offense. I don't think 4 - 5 litters is extravagant in any way. This year, I'm planning three litters, because I want to retire one of my bitches. I want her bred this year as opposed to next as she's already skipped 3-4 cycles and with each passing cycle her risk for pyometra increases, and she ages, as do her eggs. So if a hobby breeder who had say 1 litter a year wanted to do 3-5 litters one year, they would be prevented from doing so. And forget commercial breeders. No matter how reputable, they would ALL be put out of business. But that's ultimately what the ARs want.  

denise m

My breeder does give a 2yr guarantee and I assume it is the law. Could you elaborate on the down side of this from your perspective?

     I actually give lifetime for certain conditions - including hips & patellas. I also have an added health guarantee if the pup should be found unfit for sale within 12 months of sale. So it's not that I don't want my pups to have to eb guaranteed, far from it. But to be able to get a full refund after 2yrs, for any genetic condition, is ridiculous. It's something good being taken to the extreme, and forcing breeders to comply with unrealistic regulations.

ETA: I also have two caluses in my contract that negate my health guarantees, entirely. The first is if the pup is allowed to become grossly overweight or subjected to strenuous activity or inappropriate surfaces (i.e. slippery floors) before their first year. These are all known factors in environmentally induced hip/joint problems - but since HD is a polygenic condition, it would be considered my fault and my obligation to refund the pup's purchase price if the owner decided to jog with a 4 month old pup (don't laugh, I know someone who actually took their 4 month old pup hiking/joggind - surprise the dog has HD in a breed that's not known for it). Second stipulation tht negates my guarantee is if the owner does not alter their pet quality pup within the time period I have specified in the contract. Why should I be obligated to refund them and reward them for breaking my contract? Since I have these caluses in my contract, every single one of my pups is lean & muscular and believe me, I get every single Vet certificate of s/n mailed to me :) Under this legislation, I would not have the right to add those clauses in ...

      Sorry for the double post, but I just came across this on a show dog list I belong to ... it does make one a bit worried if the AKC has seen fit to address this issue already.

 

 Permission to Cross-Post Granted**

Dear Fancier:

As you probably know, Oprah is airing a show tomorrow (Friday, 4/4) on
the topic of "Puppy Mills." While the show was previously taped, we have
been in touch with the producers about our desire for responsible
breeders to be represented, and they have allowed us to submit a 2 line
statement which they said will be incorporated into the show. They have
also stated that there is no specific intention to malign purebred dogs
or the AKC.

We will be watching the show along with you and, if warranted, we will
respond publicly. However, it is our hope that Oprah's interest in
animal welfare will help open up a dialogue on the issue and that AKC
and the dog fancy will continue to be engaged.

Please direct all correspondence on this issue to communications@...

Thank you!

AKC Communications

Here's Wayne-O's quote I was thinking of.

"“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel
bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to
them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne
Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote,
1993, p. 251."

 

rwbeagles

Here's Wayne-O's quote I was thinking of.

"“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel
bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to
them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne
Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote,
1993, p. 251."

Wow.  What a well-qualified person to head such an organization.  That's one more tick in the negative column for my "Do I or don't I trust the HSUS" list.

 On the Oprah show message board, this subject is already gone to lots of breeder bashing:

http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/44908?start=30&tstart=0

You know what? Until responsible breeders get involved in crafting well written legislation and policies, they don't have much room to complain about being bashed. I don't think breeders should be bashed wholesale, but (personal opinion) they should be interested in more than their next litter.

I agree that the laws that are being proposed are largely bad laws. You know how we'll get better ones? When good breeders GET INVOLVED. Although I disagree with Houndmusic on breeding for profit, it is obvious she cares about her pups and has a lot of experience in breeding and raising puppies. We need people like her to get involved in creating a system that cracks down on harmful practices and doesn't overly penalize hobby breeders.

Breeders, don't simply oppose all bad legislation or bad publicity. Don't oppose ALL legislation.  Help create better proposals! Help crack down on animal abuse! Breeders have knowledge that strict rescue-only people don't.

 The messages were an interesting read. Thanks for the link. I only read about 10 of the 47 pages. The majority of posters were involved in rescue with a few breeders making comment. It just goes to show that everyone has their agendas. For the love of me I can't understand why both rescuers and reputable breeders cannot unite on the issue of puppymills. Wouldn't the crack down on these horrible places be a win win situation for rescue organizations, shelters and reputable breeders alike?

Dog_ma

You know how we'll get better ones? When good breeders GET INVOLVED.

This is exactly what I find myself thinking when these types of issues come up. Maybe breeders are working in the background to help with the problem, but why aren't they more vocal about it then? All I ever hear or read is rhetoric going back and forth but no viable solutions offered up. If the people who stand to lose the most want changes made to stop the needless suffering of puppies in puppy mills, then speak up.  To simply say that although this might put an end to puppy mills BUT it will also affect me, isn't good enough. If there's no alternative, I'll take anything any improvement rather than settle for the status quo.